"If there were flames when they got there, they'd be substantial enough that there wouldn't be any argument over whether there was a fire."
My wife used to design sprinkler systems and just from the earbashing* I've received I know that's totally wrong. A fire can remain smoldering for hours, and burst into flame when it's finally exposed.
* Checking into a hotel with a fire protection engineer is an education.:)
The summary includes a slam (or two, depending on how you count) against Novell.
I have to say that despite my initial skepticism back when they bought it, I have come to believe that Novell has done a far better job throughout every part of their stewardship of the UNIX copyrights than anyone would have expected. Remember that when they acquired it the lawsuit over BSD was still ongoing... and the first thing that Novell said about it was that they would rather compete in the market than in court. Lawsuits have momentum, so it took a while to wind down, but the final settlement was remarkably positive: CSRG had to remove a token - three files - and Novell agreed not to sue anyone using the resulting code base.
I also had the opportunity to use UNIXware from Novell, and it was a solid release of System V... far better than SCO's awful version.
After their vigorous and aggressive response to SCO's actions, I think they deserve better than this.
OK, what's the original quote, and was it Shepard or Glenn? Or was this just too good a line for any of the Right Stuff mob to pass up?
"When reporters asked Shepard what he thought about as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, 'The fact that every part of this ship was built by the low bidder.'"
"I felt about as good as anybody would, sitting in a capsule on top of a rocket that were both built by the lowest bidder." (Senator John Glenn, Colonel USMC, Retired)
"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract." -- Alan Shepard.
So the thing to be is not he first drive to pass 1TB, but the first drive to be shipped in large quantities with that capacity... to be the first to make them with the form factor, price, and interface to sell to the mass market. Whether IBM beat Maxtor to 1GB or not, the only ones you could actually find at resellers were Maxtor's. And that was hard enough.
I don't know if IBM was only selling SMD drives, or whether they were only using them in their own systems (possibly, IBM was often IBM's biggest customer when it came to parts), but for several years the biggest and most reliable ESDI and later SCSI drives you could get were Maxtor's.
I didn't know about the wikipedia raw database, or I'd probably have done something like this myself, and hooked it into the UNIX "locate" db, or Spotlight, or maybe...
$ man w locate GNU Locate From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(redirected from Locate) ... This software-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
In a few years people are going to be taking advantage of Google's storage to upload everything pretty close to 24/7 from their phonecam to broadcast on Google's video servers, and you'll be be able to mashup this with Google maps street level and redirect it to your VR-of-choice and it'll be just like being there (if you look past the lag and compression artifacts), except with a rewind button.
I can think of worse guardians of the transparent society.
I know you didn't say this, it's a quote, but it made my brain go "WAIT a godamn second, did he really SAY that?"
"I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network, obviously not the piece from the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in Internet access fees, but for accessing the so-called Internet cloud.". . . .."They might pass it on to their customers," he says of the fees that he wants to charge the sites.
OK, there's three bits here.
The content providers are paying directly for the bit going to the cloud.
The content receivers are paying directly for the bit coming from the cloud.
Who's paying for the bit in the middle?
Well, some of it is paid by whoever the content receivers are paying.
And some of it is paid by whoever the content providers are paying.
And these people, why, they're passing it on to the customer.
ALREADY.
There's nothing left over that isn't being paid for. The cloud is getting its money, already, and the costs are being passed on to the customer, already, and what this sorry son of an elasmobranch wants to do is get them to pay for it twice.
If I double-billed a customer that would be fraud.
Well, you know, I reckon that's an accurate term for what this bloke is trying to pull.
Services run from inetd/xinetd have their port and interface bindings managed externally, and since UNIX systems have run multihomed almost from the start, there are few if any deamons that can't be run bound to localhost, so if you have to run a local webserver for some purpose it can be unconditionally protected from remote exploits simply by running it on localhost... so as far as an attacker is concerned it doesn't exist.
Cable companies and telephone companies are government supported and maintained regulated monopolies. The video that you watch and the music you listen to over cable networks, the internet, and broadcast TV is protected by government-enforced monopolies that enable industry lawyers to ruin people by sheerest mistake.
In a free market you could take your feed of "MTV" and rebroadcast it through your neighborhood over wifi, low power FM, or anything else you and your neighbors were into and nobody could legally stop you. In a free market all the record and movie companies could depend on is a short term market window before the stuff they produced got onto the net. In a free market there would be weak intellectual property laws, no contracts of adhesion, no free ride on the right-of-way for anyone, and your cable company would be competing with lillypad networks running hop-by-hop to the nearest Google network office.
And maybe it would all come tumbling down, but it's been the government support of these monopolies that has squashed more grassroots infrastructure efforts that I've watched try and get off the ground (since it was modem-linked networked BBSes in the '70s and '80s) than any internal flaws.
The Sun audio device handled aLaw/Law audio directly, and since they were the Microsoft of the UNIX world everyone else's "/dev/audio" devices work the same way.
This is like finding a file in BMP or WAV format, you go "oh, that's an oldschool DOS/Windows guy who doesn't know any better"... this is what you get when oldschool Sun/UNIX guys who don't know any better release stuff. It's no biggy... chuckle and move on.
If those were my only two choices then I'd pick Red Hat. I've never used Solaris 10 for more than anything but messing around, but I've used Solaris 9 and below extensively and frankly, their package management system sucks ass.
My experience with packages on Red Hat has left me of the opinion that I'd rather find the original distributions from wherever Red Hat got them and roll my own distro than deal with the Red Hat Package Manager or anything that uses it ever again. If I didn't have experience with better free UNIX packaging schemes (which, as far as I can tell, means everything else) I might be inclined to assume the whole idea was a scam.
On a side note, I wonder how long I'd last in the real world if I sold physical products which could, if I so desired, evaporate overnight with no prior warning and the purchaser having done nothing wrong? And then I started making them evaporate?
Ask people who bought Omnisky internet access for their PDAs.
Well, I guess the Omnisky receiver hasn't evaporated, but it might as well have for all te good it does.
Now, just wait until companies start shipping devices with Vista-only drivers.
Because, don't forget, Vista can evaporate just like that.
The eMusic catalog is heavily weighted with independent labels, unsigned artists, works on which the copyright has expired, but they have a surprisingly large amount of music that I never would have expected to be there. Since I don't care too much about whether I'm listening to music that everyone else is listening to, eMusic is great.
The downside is that their website is occasionally flakey, and while it's heavily targeting IE it can be flakey even on IE on Windows. Their credit card processing is likewise flakey. Don't leave a lot of unused downloads in your account.
SCO stopped being any kind of answer years before
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 1
I used SCO during the "OpenServer" years, and we called it "SCO Opensewer". Open Desktop got tagged "SCO Opendeathtrap".
* They seemed to have gotten their ideas of OS design from Windows 3.11, with at least four incompatible ways to install drivers and applications. * They were one of the last companies to really try and ship a linkable kernel with a crippled internal-only C compiler that was nobbled to only compile driver stubs so they could charge more for the compiler. * System administration was an appalling hash of old incompatible programs, text files, binary files, with no rhyme or reason to it. * SCO's appalling implementation of soi-disant "C2" security made it a laughingstock... for many years there was a 14 character limit on Usenet group name components because there were enough people still using SCO and SCO's C2 software made some versions of News crash if a group name got over 14 characters.
They were clearly completely out of their depth by then, with no idea how to do anything but apply layers of bad ideas on top of worse ones. When they took on Unixware, I was appalled. I just waited for them to dump the stinking corpse of Openserver on top of it and was sadly not disappointed.
The glory years of SCO were when Xenix ruled, and when Microsoft was in the driving seat. After that it was all downhill... when they finally dumped Xenix emulation there was no more reason to use them.
That "aggressive install" tactic really puts me in mind of Acrobat's insistence on forcing its plugin into every browser it can find whether you want it to or not...
And I hope they don't. 25% retention rate for casual downloads is incredibly high. Why on earth do they want to junkx things?
You completely misunderstood the first point. It was specifically about the presence of the files on the computer, not whether they were shared or not. The RIAA claimed that the mere presence of files, regardless of whether they were being shared, was proof that the recipient was violating copyright... that is to say, precisely the same point you made in response to it.
Your second and third arguments are not even relevant at this stage. This is not about fines or damages, it's about the validity of a subpoena. The RIAA's subpoena did not even claim that anyone other than their agent had copied the files, deliberately made the files available for copying, invited anyone to copy the files, or done anything but have the files in a directory that wasn't secure from public access... and the argument is that this is not sufficient reason to grant the subpoena.
As I said, this does not mean that the RIAA can not produce a valid subpoena. I'm sure you could give them good advice in putting one together... there's quite a bit in your message. I suspect you misunderstood the purpose of my posting, and I apologise for anything in it that lead you to that... perhaps I should have provided more context about the message I was responding to, in the remote chance that you might have been unable to read it?
The term was not created by the RIAA, it was created by early cracking groups and individuals to describe their own activities, and adopted by other groups operating outside the law in similar ways (for example, self-proclaimed "pirate radio stations"). It's been broadened to the point of meaninglessness (as most such terms are) and is now applied to pretty much any violation of copyright law, and as you note it's not really appropriate in the current debate... but it's definitely NOT something the RIAA made up nor is every use of the word outside the definition of the legal term meaningless.
I have both Minis and the new one seems to have faster and more capable graphics.
In 2d apps, sure, but it's not the GMA950 that's doing the heavy lifting. The Core 2 Duo mini would probably be capable of beating the Radeon 9200 in the old Mini without any GPU at all... the Core Duo was only a little slower in 3d.
But doing all that in the CPU is horribly inefficient and wasteful, AND the Radeon 9200 was a trailing edge chipset on the way out three *years* ago when Apple picked it for the original Mini... the current low end ATI and nVidia chipsets are as far beyond that as the Core 2 Duo is beyond the Pentium M. A better balanced computer could be faster overall with slower, cheaper, and less power-hungry parts... and remain practical for longer.
If you google you will see that the main arguments are:
* Simply having files containing potentially unauthorized copies of music is not a violation: the entity distributing the music is responsible for any copyright violations. * That the RIAA has not shown that the defendants were aware they they were even potentially distributing the files. * The only distribution that the RIAA has shown to have been performed by the defendants was authorized by the RIAA and therefore wasn't a copyright violation.
This is actually pretty solid, and while of course there are several things the RIAA can do to cover these gaping holes in their approach there's not much they can do about the current case if these arguments prevail.
Damn you, that's pretty much exactly what I was about to post. I miss the Scientific American "Mathematical Games" column, which is where I first ran into this scheme.
I thought that Martin Gardner argued that step to was combinatorial, so proportional to N! not N^2.
In either case, it seems to be equivalent to the scheme in teh article.
Slashdot Mirror
"If there were flames when they got there, they'd be substantial enough that there wouldn't be any argument over whether there was a fire."
:)
My wife used to design sprinkler systems and just from the earbashing* I've received I know that's totally wrong. A fire can remain smoldering for hours, and burst into flame when it's finally exposed.
* Checking into a hotel with a fire protection engineer is an education.
The summary includes a slam (or two, depending on how you count) against Novell.
I have to say that despite my initial skepticism back when they bought it, I have come to believe that Novell has done a far better job throughout every part of their stewardship of the UNIX copyrights than anyone would have expected. Remember that when they acquired it the lawsuit over BSD was still ongoing... and the first thing that Novell said about it was that they would rather compete in the market than in court. Lawsuits have momentum, so it took a while to wind down, but the final settlement was remarkably positive: CSRG had to remove a token - three files - and Novell agreed not to sue anyone using the resulting code base.
I also had the opportunity to use UNIXware from Novell, and it was a solid release of System V... far better than SCO's awful version.
After their vigorous and aggressive response to SCO's actions, I think they deserve better than this.
OK, what's the original quote, and was it Shepard or Glenn? Or was this just too good a line for any of the Right Stuff mob to pass up?
"When reporters asked Shepard what he thought about as he sat atop the Redstone rocket, waiting for liftoff, he had replied, 'The fact that every part of this ship was built by the low bidder.'"
"I felt about as good as anybody would, sitting in a capsule on top of a rocket that were both built by the lowest bidder." (Senator John Glenn, Colonel USMC, Retired)
"It's a very sobering feeling to be up in space and realize that one's safety factor was determined by the lowest bidder on a government contract." -- Alan Shepard.
Why not link directly to the source instead of some blogger collecting Adsense?
At least they didn't link to the PhysORG tarpit, which files the originating marks off any story so you have to google for the original.
So the thing to be is not he first drive to pass 1TB, but the first drive to be shipped in large quantities with that capacity... to be the first to make them with the form factor, price, and interface to sell to the mass market. Whether IBM beat Maxtor to 1GB or not, the only ones you could actually find at resellers were Maxtor's. And that was hard enough.
I don't know if IBM was only selling SMD drives, or whether they were only using them in their own systems (possibly, IBM was often IBM's biggest customer when it came to parts), but for several years the biggest and most reliable ESDI and later SCSI drives you could get were Maxtor's.
Quick; what was the model and manufacturer of the first drive to pass 500GB, or 1GB.
Don't know about 500GB but I'm pretty sure it was a Maxtor XT series drive to be the first past 1GB.
I should probably not have written "guardian".
Perhaps a better term would be "midwife".
Google is simply the first institution that's got the resources and inclination to be the Transparent Society's archive.
There's no reason that one has to send ones Fair Witness video stream to just one place, after all.
The Transparent Society.
In a few years people are going to be taking advantage of Google's storage to upload everything pretty close to 24/7 from their phonecam to broadcast on Google's video servers, and you'll be be able to mashup this with Google maps street level and redirect it to your VR-of-choice and it'll be just like being there (if you look past the lag and compression artifacts), except with a rewind button.
I can think of worse guardians of the transparent society.
I know you didn't say this, it's a quote, but it made my brain go "WAIT a godamn second, did he really SAY that?"
."They might pass it on to their customers," he says of the fees that he wants to charge the sites.
"I think the content providers should be paying for the use of the network, obviously not the piece from the customer to the network, which has already been paid for by the customer in Internet access fees, but for accessing the so-called Internet cloud.". . . .
OK, there's three bits here.
The content providers are paying directly for the bit going to the cloud.
The content receivers are paying directly for the bit coming from the cloud.
Who's paying for the bit in the middle?
Well, some of it is paid by whoever the content receivers are paying.
And some of it is paid by whoever the content providers are paying.
And these people, why, they're passing it on to the customer.
ALREADY.
There's nothing left over that isn't being paid for. The cloud is getting its money, already, and the costs are being passed on to the customer, already, and what this sorry son of an elasmobranch wants to do is get them to pay for it twice.
If I double-billed a customer that would be fraud.
Well, you know, I reckon that's an accurate term for what this bloke is trying to pull.
Services run from inetd/xinetd have their port and interface bindings managed externally, and since UNIX systems have run multihomed almost from the start, there are few if any deamons that can't be run bound to localhost, so if you have to run a local webserver for some purpose it can be unconditionally protected from remote exploits simply by running it on localhost... so as far as an attacker is concerned it doesn't exist.
Cable companies and telephone companies are government supported and maintained regulated monopolies. The video that you watch and the music you listen to over cable networks, the internet, and broadcast TV is protected by government-enforced monopolies that enable industry lawyers to ruin people by sheerest mistake.
In a free market you could take your feed of "MTV" and rebroadcast it through your neighborhood over wifi, low power FM, or anything else you and your neighbors were into and nobody could legally stop you. In a free market all the record and movie companies could depend on is a short term market window before the stuff they produced got onto the net. In a free market there would be weak intellectual property laws, no contracts of adhesion, no free ride on the right-of-way for anyone, and your cable company would be competing with lillypad networks running hop-by-hop to the nearest Google network office.
And maybe it would all come tumbling down, but it's been the government support of these monopolies that has squashed more grassroots infrastructure efforts that I've watched try and get off the ground (since it was modem-linked networked BBSes in the '70s and '80s) than any internal flaws.
The Sun audio device handled aLaw/Law audio directly, and since they were the Microsoft of the UNIX world everyone else's "/dev/audio" devices work the same way.
This is like finding a file in BMP or WAV format, you go "oh, that's an oldschool DOS/Windows guy who doesn't know any better"... this is what you get when oldschool Sun/UNIX guys who don't know any better release stuff. It's no biggy... chuckle and move on.
If those were my only two choices then I'd pick Red Hat. I've never used Solaris 10 for more than anything but messing around, but I've used Solaris 9 and below extensively and frankly, their package management system sucks ass.
My experience with packages on Red Hat has left me of the opinion that I'd rather find the original distributions from wherever Red Hat got them and roll my own distro than deal with the Red Hat Package Manager or anything that uses it ever again. If I didn't have experience with better free UNIX packaging schemes (which, as far as I can tell, means everything else) I might be inclined to assume the whole idea was a scam.
... or insightful, or something, so long as it's up.
On a side note, I wonder how long I'd last in the real world if I sold physical products which could, if I so desired, evaporate overnight with no prior warning and the purchaser having done nothing wrong? And then I started making them evaporate?
Ask people who bought Omnisky internet access for their PDAs.
Well, I guess the Omnisky receiver hasn't evaporated, but it might as well have for all te good it does.
Now, just wait until companies start shipping devices with Vista-only drivers.
Because, don't forget, Vista can evaporate just like that.
The eMusic catalog is heavily weighted with independent labels, unsigned artists, works on which the copyright has expired, but they have a surprisingly large amount of music that I never would have expected to be there. Since I don't care too much about whether I'm listening to music that everyone else is listening to, eMusic is great.
The downside is that their website is occasionally flakey, and while it's heavily targeting IE it can be flakey even on IE on Windows. Their credit card processing is likewise flakey. Don't leave a lot of unused downloads in your account.
I used SCO during the "OpenServer" years, and we called it "SCO Opensewer". Open Desktop got tagged "SCO Opendeathtrap".
* They seemed to have gotten their ideas of OS design from Windows 3.11, with at least four incompatible ways to install drivers and applications.
* They were one of the last companies to really try and ship a linkable kernel with a crippled internal-only C compiler that was nobbled to only compile driver stubs so they could charge more for the compiler.
* System administration was an appalling hash of old incompatible programs, text files, binary files, with no rhyme or reason to it.
* SCO's appalling implementation of soi-disant "C2" security made it a laughingstock... for many years there was a 14 character limit on Usenet group name components because there were enough people still using SCO and SCO's C2 software made some versions of News crash if a group name got over 14 characters.
They were clearly completely out of their depth by then, with no idea how to do anything but apply layers of bad ideas on top of worse ones. When they took on Unixware, I was appalled. I just waited for them to dump the stinking corpse of Openserver on top of it and was sadly not disappointed.
The glory years of SCO were when Xenix ruled, and when Microsoft was in the driving seat. After that it was all downhill... when they finally dumped Xenix emulation there was no more reason to use them.
That "aggressive install" tactic really puts me in mind of Acrobat's insistence on forcing its plugin into every browser it can find whether you want it to or not...
And I hope they don't. 25% retention rate for casual downloads is incredibly high. Why on earth do they want to junkx things?
You completely misunderstood the first point. It was specifically about the presence of the files on the computer, not whether they were shared or not. The RIAA claimed that the mere presence of files, regardless of whether they were being shared, was proof that the recipient was violating copyright... that is to say, precisely the same point you made in response to it.
Your second and third arguments are not even relevant at this stage. This is not about fines or damages, it's about the validity of a subpoena. The RIAA's subpoena did not even claim that anyone other than their agent had copied the files, deliberately made the files available for copying, invited anyone to copy the files, or done anything but have the files in a directory that wasn't secure from public access... and the argument is that this is not sufficient reason to grant the subpoena.
As I said, this does not mean that the RIAA can not produce a valid subpoena. I'm sure you could give them good advice in putting one together... there's quite a bit in your message. I suspect you misunderstood the purpose of my posting, and I apologise for anything in it that lead you to that... perhaps I should have provided more context about the message I was responding to, in the remote chance that you might have been unable to read it?
The term was not created by the RIAA, it was created by early cracking groups and individuals to describe their own activities, and adopted by other groups operating outside the law in similar ways (for example, self-proclaimed "pirate radio stations"). It's been broadened to the point of meaninglessness (as most such terms are) and is now applied to pretty much any violation of copyright law, and as you note it's not really appropriate in the current debate... but it's definitely NOT something the RIAA made up nor is every use of the word outside the definition of the legal term meaningless.
Or at least learn to read. That's not "my point", that's the defense's legal argument.
And it doesn't matter what you or I know, it's a matter of what the prosecution can prove.
I have both Minis and the new one seems to have faster and more capable graphics.
In 2d apps, sure, but it's not the GMA950 that's doing the heavy lifting. The Core 2 Duo mini would probably be capable of beating the Radeon 9200 in the old Mini without any GPU at all... the Core Duo was only a little slower in 3d.
But doing all that in the CPU is horribly inefficient and wasteful, AND the Radeon 9200 was a trailing edge chipset on the way out three *years* ago when Apple picked it for the original Mini... the current low end ATI and nVidia chipsets are as far beyond that as the Core 2 Duo is beyond the Pentium M. A better balanced computer could be faster overall with slower, cheaper, and less power-hungry parts... and remain practical for longer.
If you google you will see that the main arguments are:
* Simply having files containing potentially unauthorized copies of music is not a violation: the entity distributing the music is responsible for any copyright violations.
* That the RIAA has not shown that the defendants were aware they they were even potentially distributing the files.
* The only distribution that the RIAA has shown to have been performed by the defendants was authorized by the RIAA and therefore wasn't a copyright violation.
This is actually pretty solid, and while of course there are several things the RIAA can do to cover these gaping holes in their approach there's not much they can do about the current case if these arguments prevail.
Damn you, that's pretty much exactly what I was about to post. I miss the Scientific American "Mathematical Games" column, which is where I first ran into this scheme.
I thought that Martin Gardner argued that step to was combinatorial, so proportional to N! not N^2.
In either case, it seems to be equivalent to the scheme in teh article.